Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac (1040–1105), known by the Hebrew acronym Rashi, authored a running commentary on almost the entire Talmud as well as one on almost all of the Hebrew Bible. Both fairly quickly became essential to all traditional Jewish study and teaching of these texts. In his recent book Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah, Eric Lawee attempts to give this work its proper place in Jewish intellectual history by examining both the commentary itself and its rabbinic admirers and detractors. Discussing the book with Alan Brill, Lawee explains Rashi’s use of midrash—rabbinic exegesis, mostly from the 4th through 7th centuries—which the sage draws on heavily, often presenting it alongside a more literal interpretation:

Rashi’s careful selection and at times decisive reformulation of midrash shaped perceptions of the Torah’s teachings. . . . On one level, Rashi uses midrashim to address countless ever-so-slight “surface irregularities” (to use the scholar James Kugel’s term) in Scripture, such as apparent redundancies. On another level, midrash infuses the commentary with a profusion of theological ideas and elements of pastoral reassurance.

For example, [living in] a medieval world . . . in which Jews lived under either Christians or Muslims as a tiny minority, and at times a persecuted one (Rashi’s lifetime coincides with the violent assaults on German Jewish communities during the First Crusade of 1096), Rashi frequently reassures his reader via his use of midrashic teachings that God’s love for Israel is eternal and that the Jews remain, despite the evidence, the “chosen people.”

[Yet] Rashi does not explain the meaning of the midrashim that he adduces, leaving readers to ponder their purport. . . . [T]hese midrashim . . . remained pliably open to interpretation. Thus the commentary has the capacity to generate a successive unfolding of meaning as the divine word is refracted through Rashi’s commentary and, in turn, the varied lenses worn by his diverse readers.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”